|
 |
RSS Feed  |
a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life |
|
|
You are here
|
Creativity!
|
Get it!
|
I like it!
|
Fun stuff!
|
About me...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Random Quote
Everywhere I go, I'm asked if I think the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them.
-- Flannery O'Connor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blog - Blog Archive by Month - Blog Archive by Tag - Search Blog and Comments
|
<-- Go to Previous Page
 Climategate - which is the release of inner-circle emails from the Climate Research Unit - gains steam. The media doesn't want to cover it. But some readers know about it anyway, as the link shows.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the issue here. The questions: - Is the earth warming?
- Is man responsible for the warming of the earth?
- Would warming harm us?
- If so, can we take measures to reverse it?
To get to the bottom of all that, various research teams from around the globe collect data, analyze it, and then present their conclusions. One of these is the Climate Research Unit, "a component of the University of East Anglia and one of the leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change." Someone hacked into their systems and grabbed 3,000 emails and documents from their servers and then posted them online. The documents aren't flattering.The main line lifted from the emails is this from CRU's Phil Jones: I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Emphasis mine.Are they telling the truth or fudging the numbers? And where do scientists fall on this issue? Here's advice from climatologist and climate science skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer: Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing? Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC's politics, not to find out how nature works. The 'data spin' is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Science is about a pursuit of the truth. Yes? If so, why won't the CRU release its data for peer review and confirmation?From the emails: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" - sent by Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research."If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." - Phil Jones, head of Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England Don't want to show me your data? Until all of the data can be put on the table and it's verified, we can't even begin a discussion. Meanwhile, I'm left to a single conclusion:It's all bullshit. Here are the answers to the questions I asked: - Is the earth warming? A) Maybe, but it's been cooling lately, and the earth has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling.
- Is man responsible for the warming of the earth? A) Nobody knows.
- Would warming harm us? A) If the Ice Age didn't kill us, why would a warming trend? Warming trends in the past didn't eradicate life from the planet.
- If so, can we take measures to reverse it? A) Moot point since the jury is out on the rest of the questions, but that won't stop politicians from trying to maximize their political ambitions through manufactured crisis.
Ever since "Perception is reality" started to take hold, facts seem to have become subjective. Which is a tragedy. People get offended when others will confront them with facts, because doing so tells these folks that they're wrong if their perceptions don't align with the facts.What does it say about a person when they lack a bias for the exposure of facts? |
by Brett Rogers, 11/27/2009 9:59:33 AM
Permalink
|
|
|
|
| Comments
|
But...but...the debate is over! Like all fraud scandals, follow the money. Find out who stands to profit from perpetuating the shady data. The green movement that's been pushing green tech and cap and trade, are the the very same investors who will benefit most from their adoption. |
|
|
"It's all bullshit." Absolutely. How these clowns can call themselves scientists is beyond me. Back in college, whether it was math, engineering, science the rule was simple. Show your work or get a zero. Hide your data get a zero. Assclowns, not scientists. |
| | Posted by Pale Rider, 11/28/2009 3:13:14 PM |
|
|
And the bullshit gets even deeper http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece |
| | Posted by Pale Rider, 11/29/2009 7:03:24 PM |
|
|
Add Your Comment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
